This was sufficient to indicate an unusual or illegal operation of her motor vehicle to a prudent officer. See Martin v. Director of Revenue, 248 S.W.3d 685, 689 (Mo.App. 2008). There was also sufficient uncontroverted evidence of indicia of intoxication to show probable cause.
While defense counsel generally argued that failure to follow the NHTSA guidelines would affect the reliability of the tests, the trial court was presented with no evidence to that effect. See Martin v. Director of Revenue, 248 S.W.3d 685, 688–89 (Mo.App.2008). Defendant has cited no authority, and we are aware of none, holding that an adequate foundation for the admission of HGN test results requires testimony from the officer that all of the NHTSA guidelines were followed during the administration of that test.
More to the point, the frequency of reversals is irrelevant to the outcome of any particular case, because a court's decision to reverse or affirm necessarily depends on a careful and detailed examination of the facts of each case. See, e.g., Searcy v. Seedorff, 8 S.W.3d 113, 115 (Mo. banc 1999); Buckner v. Jordan, 952 S.W.2d 710, 712 (Mo. banc 1997); Grossman v. St. John, 323 S.W.3d 831, 834–35 (Mo.App. W.D.2010); Martha's Hands, LLC v. Rothman, 328 S.W.3d 474, 482 (Mo.App. E.D.2010); Sullins v. Knierim, 308 S.W.3d 241, 248 (Mo.App. E.D.2010); Glenstone Block Co. v. Pebworth, 330 S.W.3d 98, 103 (Mo.App. S.D.2010); In re D.O., 315 S.W.3d 406, 408 (Mo.App. S.D.2010); Andrews v. Andrews, 290 S.W.3d 783, 788 (Mo.App. E.D.2009); Wightman v. Wightman, 295 S.W.3d 183, 187 (Mo.App. E.D.2009); West v. Dir. of Revenue, 297 S.W.3d 648, 650 (Mo.App. S.D.2009) (before Scott, C.J., Lynch, P.J., and Rahmeyer, J.); Rozier v. Dir. of Revenue, 272 S.W.3d 262, 266 (Mo.App. W.D.2008); Martin v. Dir. of Revenue, 248 S.W.3d 685, 689 (Mo.App. W.D.2008); Viacom Outdoor, Inc. v. Taouil, 254 S.W.3d 234, 238 (Mo.App. E.D.2008); Davis v. Schmidt, 210 S.W.3d 494, 518 (Mo.App. W.D.2007); In re R.M., 234 S.W.3d 619, 625 (Mo.App. E.D.2007); Swartz v. Johnson, 192 S.W.3d 752, 755 (Mo.App. W.D.2006); Manager of Div. of Fin. of Jackson Cnty. v. La–Sha Consulting, Inc., 224 S.W.3d 605, 607 (Mo.App. W.D.2006) (before Newton, P.J., Breckenridge and Ellis, JJ.); Huskey v. Dir. of Revenue, 183 S.W.3d 628, 629 (Mo.App. S.D.2006) (before Raymeyer, P.J., Parrish and Lynch, JJ.); Pride v. Lewis, 179 S.W.3d 375, 377 (Mo.App. W.D.2005) (before Ulrich, P.J., Breckenridge and Smart, JJ.); Doerhoff v. Salmons, 162 S.W.3d 498, 502–03 (Mo.App. W.D.2005) (before Holliger, P.J., Breckenridge and Ellis, JJ.); Mahoney v. Mahoney, 162 S.W.3d 512, 516–17 (Mo.App. W.D.2005); Campbell v. Dir. of Revenue, 172 S.W.3d 476, 477 (Mo.App. E.D.2005); Callanan v. Dir. of Revenue, 163 S.W.3d 509, 512–15 (Mo.App. E.D.2005); Tarneja v. Tarneja, 164 S.W.3d 555, 564 (Mo.App. S.D.2
re to the point, the frequency of reversals is irrelevant to the outcome of any particular case, because a court's decision to reverse or affirm necessarily depends on a careful and detailed examination of the facts of each case. See, e.g., Searcy v. Seedorff, 8 S.W.3d 113, 115 (Mo. banc 1999); Buckner v. Jordan, 952 S.W.2d 710, 712 (Mo. banc 1997); Grossman v. St. John, 323 S.W.3d 831, 834-35 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010); Martha's Hands, LLC v. Rothman, 328 S.W.3d 474, 482 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010); Sullins v. Knierim, 308 S.W.3d 241, 248 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010); Glenstone Block Co. v. Pebworth, 330 S.W.3d 98, 103 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010); In re D.O., 315 S.W.3d 406, 408 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010); Andrews v. Andrews, 290 S.W.3d 783, 788 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009); Wightman v. Wightman, 295 S.W.3d 183, 187 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009); West v. Dir. of Revenue, 297 S.W.3d 648, 650 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009) (before Scott, C.J., Lynch, P.J., and Rahmeyer, J.); Rozier v. Dir. of Revenue, 272 S.W.3d 262, 266 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008); Martin v. Dir. of Revenue, 248 S.W.3d 685, 689 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008); Viacom Outdoor, Inc. v. Taouil, 254 S.W.3d 234, 238 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008); Davis v. Schmidt, 210 S.W.3d 494, 518 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007); In re R.M., 234 S.W.3d 619, 625 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007); Swartz v. Johnson, 192 S.W.3d 752, 755 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006); Manager of Div. of Fin. of Jackson Cnty. v. La-Sha Consulting, Inc., 224 S.W.3d 605, 607 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (before Newton, P.J., Breckenridge and Ellis, JJ.); Huskey v. Dir. of Revenue, 183 S.W.3d 628, 629 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006) (before Raymeyer, P.J., Parrish and Lynch, JJ.); Pride v. Lewis, 179 S.W.3d 375, 377 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (before Ulrich, P.J., Breckenridge and Smart, JJ.); Doerhoff v. Salmons, 162 S.W.3d 498, 502-03 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (before Holliger, P.J.,Breckenridge and Ellis, JJ.); Mahoney v. Mahoney, 162 S.W.3d 512, 516-17 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005); Campbell v. Dir. of Revenue, 172 S.W.3d 476, 477 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005); Callanan v. Dir. of Revenue, 163 S.W.3d 509, 512-15 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005); Tarneja v. Tarneja, 164 S.W.3d 55
Where, as here, "the evidence is uncontroverted or admitted, so that the real issue is a legal one as to the legal effect of the evidence, there is no need to defer to the trial court's judgment." Martin v. Dir. of Revenue, 248 S.W.3d 685, 687 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008). Therefore, the issue on appeal is what legal standard a property owner/developer must meet to create an easement across its own property and preserve it for the benefit of future lot owners and whether the relevant evidence supported a finding that Developers met that standard in this case.
Missouri courts have repeatedly held that erratic driving and the commission of traffic violations are indicia of intoxication which can support a finding of probable cause when coupled with other observations indicating impairment. See , e.g. , Hill v. Dir. of Revenue , 424 S.W.3d 495, 499-500 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) ; Martin v. Dir. of Revenue , 248 S.W.3d 685, 689 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) ; Arch v. Dir. of Revenue , 186 S.W.3d 477, 480 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006).Officer Mohler also testified that, after he stopped Srader, he observed that Srader's speech was slurred, and that his eyes were watery, glassy, and bloodshot. Combined with Srader's erratic driving, these observations likewise support a probable cause determination.
The trial court may not simply disregard, particularly in the absence of a credibility finding, the uncontroverted evidence. Bouillon, 306 S.W.3d at 202; Martin v. Director of Revenue, 248 S.W.3d 685, 689 (Mo.App.W.D.2008). Here, the trial court erred in refusing to consider third-party witness statements contained in the police report to determine whether Officer Frauenfelder had reasonable grounds to believe Respondent was driving while intoxicated.
182 S.W.3d at 248 (quoting McCarthy v. Dir. of Revenue, 120 S.W.3d 760, 763 (Mo.App. E.D.2003)). See also Martin v. Dir. of Revenue, 248 S.W.3d 685, 688 (Mo.App. W.D.2008). Here, Corporal Owens lawfully stopped Avent's vehicle because she was speeding.
182 S.W.3d at 248 (quoting McCarthy v. Dir. of Revenue, 120 S.W.3d 760, 763 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003)). See also Martin v. Dir. of Revenue, 248 S.W.3d 685, 688 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008). Here, Corporal Owens lawfully stopped Avent's vehicle because she was speeding.
" Id. "As long as the trial court's judgment is supported by substantial evidence, the appellate court will affirm the judgment, regardless of whether the appellate court would have reached the same result." Martin v. Dir. of Revenue, 248 S.W.3d 685, 687 (Mo.App. 2008). "But if the evidence is uncontroverted or admitted, so that the real issue is a legal one as to the legal effect of the evidence, there is no need to defer to the circuit court's judgment.